Then, as an economist, I'm surprised that you seem to be making the Kates/Mauser article your centerpiece, since it opens with a straw-man argument. Here:

Do you have any critique regarding their numbers and the use of them? You might notice that another one of my sources is a radical racist, but that doesn't make the numbers wrong.

Quote:

People have gone back and tried to determine the probably murder rate in the London of Shakespeare's day. Not surprisingly, it compares much better to high-crime third-world cities of today than Singapore. So what? Again, nobody that I know has ever claimed that all crime flows out of the barrel of a gun. It is a ridiculous straw-man argument. In this case it detracts from the point the paper's authors seem to be trying to make, which is that this is a complex problem.

Have you watched for instance Piers Morgan? I've seen him retort to the "do you think less guns would mean less gun related deaths" over and over when confronted with statistics about how enforcing stricter gun control haven't caused a drop in the total homicide rate, and in a few cases the correlation is even negative.

Quote:

This is what the gun lobby wants you to believe that gun control advocates are saying.

No, this is what I'm hearing the gun control advocates saying. The lack of fact based arguments is what made me question it, read about it and finally start this thread because I just couldn't find what I was looking for.

Quote:

It is a fact-- lots of sources later -- that industrialized, urbanized countries with strict gun controls are able to achieve low homicide rates -- much lower than the U.S. It is also a fact that most/all of these countries also are some sense (depends on definition) "nanny states"-- I have to mention/admit this, because, however stupidly the pro-gun arguments are sometimes stated, the "nanny state" issue is a factor behind many/most of the arguments.

Having lower murder rates per se isn't really interesting though, what's interesting is how they're affected by gun control - since that's the question at hand.

My guess is that the US has far greater problems than gun control causing the enormous homicide rates, the question is if stricter gun control would solve anything or if it's just focusing on the wrong things.

So lax gun regulations isn't bad because it causes increased violence in that country, but in the neighbouring countries? (Both Canada and Mexico have higher gun murder to gun ownership ratios than the US.)

That would make sense, as while it is obviously much more difficult to take guns across international borders than across state lines it is still relatively straightforward to take guns across the US-Canada or US-Mexico borders.

__________________Perhaps this is not such a bad idea. Can anyone prove that many politicians aren't the offspring of a jackass? - rdowns

The fact that no normal white driver ever gets pulled over by the cops in the daytime.

As long as you are driving a road legal car and follow the traffic laws you just aren't going to get pulled over by the cops in the daytime.

And even if the police knew what you were doing they'd undoubtably prefer to catch you handing the guns over to gangsters, rather than committing a technical violation across state lines.

And given that you're going to actually have to catch them at the border, they could probably even claim that they crossed state lines by accident and took a wrong turn.

If you want to engage in a serious discussion you have to accept that taking guns across state lines is trivial.

This is not a response to what I said, which was: "Are you proposing it's common enough that guns are stolen or moved across state lines without it being reported to authorities that it would offset a positive correlation between gun ownership and violent crime into this mishmash? Do you have anything to support that claim?"

This is a response to what I did not say, which is: "Are you proposing it's easy to transport guns across state lines?"

I'm not trying to be rude or funny, but I would love to engage in a serious discussion, so please reply to what I did say, and not what I didn't say.

Since the debate regarding gun violence is still relevant in the media, I feel it appropriate to weigh in. It seems as if the Newtown tragedy crossed the level of violence that we as a society are able to tolerate, and will state that I am happy to see that there is a line that we are not willing to cross. That being said, the arguments making up the bulk of the debate are focused on the usual, divisive, suspects for both the causes of (violence on TV, mental health) and solutions to (weapons ban, more arms) mass murder. In an attempt to bring more depth to the debate, I will discuss various aspects of gun violence. This post may be somewhat long, but the issue of gun violence is very complex, nuanced, and it cannot be argued properly through sound bytes or one liners.

Lets start at the beginning; why do people commit mass murder? and why does it seem to be more common now than in the past? Instead of blindly blaming changes in culture or increased access to advanced weaponry I will take a more mathematically approach. Gun violence can be simplified down into two variables: 1) the rate at which people decided to commit mass murder, and 2) the probability of success. So basically, we can integrate over the entire US population and come with some bulk rate at which people decide to commit mass murder and simply multiply it by the probability of success, and this should yield some estimate of the number of mass shootings we may see in a given period of time. Now this presents a very simple solution; make either one of these numbers smaller, and the rate of mass shootings should decrease. So lets pick it apart piece by piece and discuss the factors involved in each of these numbers and how to make them smaller. We will start with the first number; the rate at which people decide to commit mass murder.

This number is a result of countless factors, including all of our favorite buzz-phrases; violence in the media, mental health, bad parenting, bullying, etc. However, what is rarely discussed is the growing US population. If you assume the rate of mass murder is a quantity that arises from integrating over the entire US population, this rate is directly proportional to the number of people in the country. For example, lets pretend (for simplicity) that 50 years ago the US population was 10 million people, and lets assume that 1 out of every 10 million people decides to commit mass murder. Now we assume today that we have 50 million people in the US. Given that exact same ratio (1/1.0E7) we have 5 times as many people deciding to commit mass murder, completely independent of any cultural or societal changes (which assume would change the 1/1.0E7 ratio). The argument I'm making is that, while violence in the media and mental health certainly play some role in determining the rate at which people decide to commit mass murder, the increase in mass shootings is primarily a statistical certainty associated with an increasing population. Furthermore, the factors governing this number are extremely complex and related to unmeasurable, and nonlinear interactions between an individuals unique brain chemistry and his/her surroundings. Furthermore, the shootings themselves are nonlinear in the sense that each mass shooting (while it disgusts the majority of the population) inspires others to commit further acts of mass murder (mass shootings lead to future mass shootings). In other words, I believe that lowering this number is somewhat of a lost cause, and while it is easy to point to the obvious, our violent culture, and our broken down mental health system, the reality is that we cannot know or predict all of the variables involved in any one individuals decision to kill. So I suggest that we accept this number as a number that will increase steadily with population, and focus more on the 2nd number; the probability of success.

This is a more tangible number to work with. This number is governed by things like the accessibility to weapons, recognition of the warning signs, direct intervention of other armed individuals, and even mechanical functions of the guns themselves. We may not be able to know why people decided to kill well enough to prevent people from wanting to kill, but we can reduce their probability of success. I will duck the mental health issue here, with acknowledgment that a better system regarding mental health would likely have a positive effect, and stick to the two sides of gun control: arm more people (as suggested by the NRA), or enact more stringent measures of gun control.

The solution presented by the NRA, to arm people near schools is NOT the correct way to go. First and foremost, it does not address the problem, it merely aims to solve one aspect of it. It says (to me) that as a society we are fully tolerant of mass murder so long as it does not occur in our schools. Malls, movie theaters, parks, we are okay with mass murder in these areas, but keep it out of our schools. It does not solve the problem, it simply protects (in theory) one contingent of society from it. Secondly, think about this solution from an economic standpoint. In a perfect world, where education was highly funded this perhaps could be a viable solution. But we live in a world where education is the first thing to get cut from budgets. The cost of implementing a solution that entails armed guards would be far too expensive given the current economic climate, you'd need to pay for more advanced background checks, training and certifications, you'd need to pay the guards at a higher rate since they would have a higher skill set, you'd have to pay for developing complex safety protocols, you'd have to pay for the weapons themselves, and the list goes on. As an academic, it would break my heart to see the already scarce resources for education get diverted from the students in order to fund this. As a third point, I do not believe that this solution would even work, as someone looking to commit mass murder, knowing there are armed guards, I would take them out by surprise first before continuing on. The mentality of "A good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun" is nice to think about, but in reality, not necessarily true, especially if the bad guy has preexisting knowledge that there are good guys with guns. Lastly, as a mathematician, I cannot accept that more guns = less gun violence. Pure and simple, if you have three oranges in the juicer and you want less juice, you don't toss in another orange. The same holds true with guns.

So this brings us to the final solution, gun control measures. I actually would be in favor of some new form of gun control. My argument here is not necessarily a cheery one, but I believe it to be sound. We cannot stop these shootings, they will continue to occur, likely at an increasing rate, and as a society, we will be able to do little but helplessly stand by. So long as there are both people and guns, there will be people using guns to kill other people. What we can do, is reduce the number of causalities to a level which we as a society can live with. A flat out ban of assault or "tactical" rifles will simply not work, never mind the fact that congress could never in 1000 years pass any sort of weapons ban. There are already too many assault weapons in US circulation for a weapons ban to have a significant effect, at least in the short term. So, I propose a measure of "Ammo Control" Eliminate high capacity magazines, and do it quickly so to reduce the amount of stock piling. Ammo is burned through at a much faster rate than the weapons themselves, and within a few years of this ban, I can envision that it would be difficult to find a magazine that can hold 50 rounds, even if your gun compatible with one. This is usually about the time that the argument of "bad guys will obtain weapons illegally, and taking legal weapons away from good guys won't help" is used. This is another argument that simply does not hold much water. If this were true, we would not see mass shootings in the US, we would see "mass grenadeings" or "mass land-minings." Why don't we see these events? Because you cannot walk into Bass Pro Shop and purchase a grenade launcher. Instead you purchase the next best thing, a high capacity rifle with high capacity ammo cartridges. Eliminating the capability to purchase high capacity ammo will reduce the number of people killed in mass shootings, of this I am wholly confident. If one can only obtain the capability to shoot off 6 or 7 rounds before having to reload, then maybe in future mass shootings we may see death tolls of 6 or 7, instead of 20 or 30. As a society, we might be able to live (begrudgingly) with that. I firmly believe that a phase out of high capacity military weapons available for public use is the right direction, but the effects of such a ban would not be felt for at least a generation. The effects of a ban on high capacity ammunition will felt much sooner, and therefore will be more likely to pass legislation.

So I will conclude by saying that, there is unfortunately no solution to gun violence, only mitigation. On the individual scale, we can teach our children to love music, or art, or science, or nature, instead of teaching them to love weapons and violence, reducing the likelihood that they personally will commit mass murder, but on the societal scale I do not believe there is a solution. So I suggest focusing on reducing the success rate, or more specifically, the degree of success. Eliminating high capacity ammo will lower the death toll in these tragic events, and while not a solution, it is a step in the right direction.

So there is my essay on gun violence, I appreciate if you took the time to read it (or parts of it). Once again, I apologize for the length, but as stated earlier, this issue cannot be argued in sound-bytes. I welcome all arguments and discussion, provided they are grounded in reason and logic and not steeped in emotion and politics.

That would make sense, as while it is obviously much more difficult to take guns across international borders than across state lines it is still relatively straightforward to take guns across the US-Canada or US-Mexico borders.

So Canadians would have a larger incentive than US citizens for USA to impose stricter gun control, and the americans should do it out of respect for their neighbouring countries? Now that's an argument World wide implementation of gun control laws due to the ineffectiveness of border patrols and customs to stop the influx to countries with stricter gun laws - and there is no evidence supporting that more relaxed gun control in those countries would make things better.

International politics, cross border policies, moving toward a more peaceful climate in general?

Japan is number seven, super strict gun control, much lower crime rate than the US. Switzerland is number nine, lax gun control, much lower crime rate than the US.

Switzerland does not have "lax gun control".

Gun politics in Switzerland are unique in Europe. Switzerland does not have a standing army, instead opting for a people's militia for its national defense. The vast majority of men between the ages of 20 and 30 are conscripted into the militia and undergo military training, including weapons training. The personal weapons of the militia are kept at home as part of the military obligations; Switzerland thus has one of the highest militia gun ownership rates in the world.[1] In recent times political opposition has expressed a desire for tighter gun regulations.

Also, you're going back to the same thing again: "less guns equal less gun related violence", but the question isn't if less guns equal less gun related violence, it's if stricter gun laws equals less violence.

----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

Source?

I've posted a few, and since I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, but rather get facts telling me that what I'm saying is wrong - well, please give me a source saying I'm wrong.

----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

No, its just those particular borders as from the US both of them are relatively open. I doubt the number of legal guns in the US makes much difference to the gun crime rate in China or Europe.

But the argument would be as effective though, unless it's only true in North America that gun laws are only effective in neighbouring countries.

Quote:

If it is easy to transport guns across state lines then state by state restrictions aren't really going to have any effect are they?

Maybe not. You still haven't answered my question though.

----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peace

Switzerland does not have "lax gun control".

Gun politics in Switzerland are unique in Europe. Switzerland does not have a standing army, instead opting for a people's militia for its national defense. The vast majority of men between the ages of 20 and 30 are conscripted into the militia and undergo military training, including weapons training. The personal weapons of the militia are kept at home as part of the military obligations; Switzerland thus has one of the highest militia gun ownership rates in the world.[1] In recent times political opposition has expressed a desire for tighter gun regulations.

And I might add this is what the forefathers envisioned in the Constitution. A "well regulated militia".

If they have strict gun control, how come the opposition is calling for "tighter gun regulations" (thank you for quoting that) and why is Switzerland constantly being compared to the US when talking gun regulations?

Be honest here, are you just crowd sourcing research assistants here for a paper you need to write for school? Because all you are doing is sitting back and saying "Show me some research proving X" I feel like you are simply trying to get people to do all your work for you.

Japan is number seven, super strict gun control, much lower crime rate than the US. Switzerland is number nine, lax gun control, much lower crime rate than the US.

Switzerland is effectively a police state though - all crime is very low there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hawkeye16

ifyp. Correlation and Causation... I know there is a saying about it somewhere...

Mexico has got a rather large drugs problem. It isn't in any way a comparable country to the US.

Additionally it is right next door to the US, so some guns are smuggled over the border.

----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by hafr

Maybe not. You still haven't answered my question though.

If no-one ever gets caught doing the crime how on earth is there going to be any hard evidence either way?

I would expect some level of common sense, if something is obviously trivial to do criminals are hardly going to have an issue doing it - people manage to smuggle drugs into the US all the time, and that is far harder than smuggling guns across state lines.

__________________Perhaps this is not such a bad idea. Can anyone prove that many politicians aren't the offspring of a jackass? - rdowns

I think the cat's out the bag WRT guns, but I couldn't help smirking when I read about local Republican leaders and the sheriff(!) holding a luncheon in which they talked about and actually showed off the best guns to own for "self-defense", which included the AR-15 used in Newtown, and the Republicans reiterated their unflinching support for no new gun laws. They apparently did this without a trace of irony, failing to recognize the mother of that mass killer represents precisely the type of person they were giving the talk to. Later, the coroner talked about recognizing mentally ill people and what could be done to commit them, and that's the only "answer" the Republicans have. They also presented that without a trace of irony about our governor concurrently cutting programs that help with the mentally ill, mentally ill youth in particular.

Japan is number seven, super strict gun control, much lower crime rate than the US. Switzerland is number nine, lax gun control, much lower crime rate than the US.

Incorrect. Switzerland's gun laws are not even close to lax, they just have a higher level of ownership. Canada has a higher level of ownership, including the ability to purchase handguns, but you require licensing and mandatory education.

There are nearly twice as many households with handguns in the US than in Switzerland, and at most the gun ownership rate is one gun for every 2.66 Swiss, vs. 1 gun for every 1.16 American.

I think you really need to look more closely at the nations you're comparing before you start making such enormous and erroneous statements about their gun laws.